Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Researchers Develop Surveillance System That Can Watch & Predict

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the unseen-mechanized-eye dept.

Software 106

hypnosec writes "Carnegie Mellon university researchers have developed a surveillance system that can not only recognize human activities but can also predict what might happen next. Scientists, through the Army-funded research dubbed Mind's Eye, have created intelligent software that recognizes human activities in video and can predict what might just happen next; sounding an alarm if it detects anomalous behavior. "

cancel ×

106 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Next up.... (4, Insightful)

CimmerianX (2478270) | about 2 years ago | (#41797147)

Thought Police Alpha Version .501 right here. Arrest him!!!! Our system assumed he would shoot somebody.

Re:Next up.... (3, Insightful)

durrr (1316311) | about 2 years ago | (#41797201)

This system will be hilariously judging when someone with ataxia or just a plain limp sounds the system every damn time he walks past. Or some poor person with social anxiety that is constantly harrassed until he refuses to go out anymore.

Re:Next up.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41797333)

Then they will just add little fixes, until the cattle "give a shit" factor is below what harms them in a relevant way.

Shutting it down because it is deeply and utterly morally wrong? Lol, yeah, right. THAT IS THE POINT.

Re:Next up.... (2)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 2 years ago | (#41798341)

"It's the cops. Just stay calm, and act normal."

Soon, Americans will treat the boys in blue, just like they did the red coats.

Re:Next up.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41798981)

"It's the cops. Just stay calm, and act normal."

Soon, Americans will treat the boys in blue, just like they did the red coats.

Are you trying to imply that the general public is about to start fighting the police like we fought against the British during the American Revolution? I think you're ignoring the fact that our police are also our fathers/mothers, brothers/sisters, and sons/daughters. I have a feeling that they don't want to fight a war against the very people they swore to protect.. their family, friends and neighbors. More Americans died during The Civil War than all other wars we fought in, combined I am pretty sure we don't want to be fighting ourselves in that manner. If you're concerned about a bloody revolution starting on US soil, then don't. Be concerned when most of the US military (and National Guard) has been shipped abroad and UN 'Peacekeeping' troops are occupying our streets.

Re:Next up.... (4, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 2 years ago | (#41799035)

You're Eight Times More Likely to be Killed by a Police Officer than a Terrorist
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/youre-eight-times-more-likely-to-be-killed-by-a-police-officer-than-a-terrorist/print/ [cato-at-liberty.org]

Re:Next up.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41799427)

I'm probably a 100000 times more likely to be killed by a neighbor than a polar bear, so what does that prove? I don't work at the zoo and I don't live in the arctic. If I lived within walking distance of dozens of free roaming polar bears the numbers would be quite different.

Re:Next up.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41800247)

Agreed. Our parent is playing games with statistics.

What percentage of our population is out preying on others, which will invoke the need of a policeman to straighten it out? Its been my observation that the "perp" is the first to use violent force in an effort to escape. The only way for a policeman to do his job is to counter with whatever force is required to do his job or protect himself. Sometimes this escalates to loss of life.

I'd still rather err on the side of law and order, as the policeman has to account for his actions to his community. The "bad guy" does not.

Re:Next up.... (1)

Apothem (1921856) | about 2 years ago | (#41800577)

Yeah I could see this happening more than anything else.

Re:Next up.... (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 2 years ago | (#41797371)

I suspect this system will see more subtle use. I suspect that this system will be deployed within corporations, and used to detect employees who are not satisfied with their treatment. Those employees will either be fired or promoted (to divide them from their peers and prevent them from organizing people). The purpose of a system like this is to enforce the social order, to prevent change, and to ensure those who are in power will remain in power.

Re:Next up.... (2)

BeanThere (28381) | about 2 years ago | (#41798103)

This system was developed by the military, not by businesses ... that should give at least some clue as to who is developing this and what their initial intentions probably are, for whatever that's worth .. from the paper:

This research was sponsored by the Army Research Laboratory
and was accomplished under Cooperative Agreement
Number W911NF-10-2-0061. The views and conclusions contained
in this document are those of the authors and should
not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either
expressed or implied, of the Army Research Laboratory or
the U.S. Government.

Regardless, systems like this are coming, and they are going to be ubiquitous, from governments to massive corporations to malls to schools to roadways etc. ... we need to think sensibly about how to deal with and implement these things in a moral way, while not just allowing our rights to be roughshodden by ruling sociopaths.

I wonder how long until it is until "automated activity prediction" is claimed to be "probable cause" to violate the 4th Amendment.

Proof that intellegence does not equal wisdom. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41799009)

"When you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it and you argue about what to do about it only after you have had your technical success. That is the way it was with the atomic bomb."

J. Robert Oppenheimer

Re:Next up.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41797765)

Do they know that, "Beer leads to Heroin?"

Predictions in a system such as this nave a limited set of behaviors from which to infer possible/probable outcomes. I wonder what percentage of the set of possible outcomes are on the benign to positive side of the equation and how much latitude the human operators on the receiving side of the information have in determining the appropriate response to a negative and probable prediction.

Is this the type of system responsible for so many colateral drone strike civilian deaths? I wonder how the military responds to inquiries about the database behind such predicitive setups.

Re:Next up.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41798351)

Don't worry. As long as you keep your mental health in top shape and psycho pass nice and green, you can rest assured you'll be able to live a safe and productive life.

Re:Next up.... (1)

memnock (466995) | about 2 years ago | (#41799831)

Can researchers just stop creating applications and systems that enable further surveillance and control of our society?

Re:Next up.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41800153)

Not likely - due to the technological imperative - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inevitability_thesis (AKA "What can be done, will be done") However, active awareness and a proactive attitude may slow it down, but is unlikely to stop it.

Re:Next up.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41801117)

facecrime - "It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself -- anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offence. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime, it was called."

Re:Next up.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41801757)

Minority Report

Re:Next up.... (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about 2 years ago | (#41802269)

It's already working. I just started reading Asimov's Prelude to Foundation, where (so far) the protagonist Seldon has a mathematical formula for predicting the future.

Once again, science fiction becomes science fact.

that's a taserin' (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41797153)

get ready to be tasered on a false positive

Uh oh (2)

p0p0 (1841106) | about 2 years ago | (#41797157)

Camera monitoring hallway:
Subject 1: "You, citizen. Pick up that can."
Subject 2: "..."
Camera: "Oh shi-"

Precrime (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41797165)

You're under arrest.
What for?
For pre-crime.
I'm not committing any crime!
You can tell that to the court.

Re:Precrime (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 2 years ago | (#41797209)

Meanwhile, an idea begins to form in Skynet's AI....

Profiling? (0)

Tablizer (95088) | about 2 years ago | (#41797169)

What it if turns out the algorithm/neural-net uses racial profiling?

Re:Profiling? (3, Interesting)

VAElynx (2001046) | about 2 years ago | (#41797203)

Uh... if it works, then so what?
Unless you assert that racial profiling would be wrong regardless of whether it works, in which case you have abandoned science and went over to the territory of ideology.

Re:Profiling? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41797249)

I bet it "works" just as well as bombing civillians from afar.

Humans can modify their behaviour. Their behaviour changes over time. Any science claiming to be able to predict human behaviour is not science, but ignorance.

Re:Profiling? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41799015)

Any science claiming to be able to predict human behaviour is not science, but ignorance.

Ahem. [wired.com]

Re:Profiling? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41797307)

Because it doesn't really matter if it works or not. Nobody here, I hope, seriously believes that the behavior of individuals can be accurately predicted all the time. What's going to matter is if they SAY it works and people believe them. Then all kinds of bad things start happening.

"Such as?", you say? Such as using this or any other snake oil tech as a "probable cause" for searches, detaining people, etc. Such as using it as an excuse to break up protests against officials because the protests will be said to get out of hand. Once you have something like this, its actual effectiveness means nothing--only how much the authorities can convince people it's real.

You can already see proof of this with the TSA. Look how many blathering idiots get on the news every time they introduce a new outrage and say that it's OK with them because it makes them "feel safe", even if whatever it is (and with the TSA it's everything) has nothing to do with actually BEING SAFE. As long as morons like that have any sway at all over our society, the only thing we as tech people can responsibly do is to stop inventing crap like this.

"Works" (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 2 years ago | (#41797311)

Define the term "works" first. This is not a system that will stop crime or catch criminals for very long; criminals will learn to behave in ways that the system won't flag.

On the other hand, this system will be great at finding people who are not accepting their position in the world, and who might rally others in that position to stand up for themselves. Rather than enforcing laws, what this system will do is enforce the social order -- criminals will learn to disguise their behaviors, but people who might lead a strike or protest will not. This system will give governments and corporations another advantage in maintaining their power and ensuring that they are able to continue to exploit society's "losers."

Re:Profiling? (2)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 2 years ago | (#41797621)

Unless you assert that racial profiling would be wrong regardless of whether it works

It does work, and it is wrong. Blacks are more likely to commit a violent crime than a white person. That is a fact. So what? They still have a right to be treated as individuals and to have equal rights before the law. In the list of priorities of a free society, "efficient law enforcement" does not come before "equal justice for all".

Re:Profiling? (2, Interesting)

Jessified (1150003) | about 2 years ago | (#41797865)

I certainly agree with your assertion of equality, but I will correct you by saying, "more likely to be arrested and convicted of a crime."

A better question is why are certain races more likely to end up in jail?

That is a big distinction. Plenty of white people commit crimes every day and see leniency from police, judges and juries that blacks in similar circumstances do not. Look at police recommendation for charges as well as sentencing for evidence. Furthermore, black people are more likely to be living in poverty, and poverty is obviously associated with higher crime rates.

Not that you said this, but many feel that there is something inherently different about black people that leads them to be arrested more frequently than white people. If white people were the "subdominant race" in America, we would see the same trends in reverse.

Re:Profiling? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41798007)

I certainly agree with your assertion of equality, but I will correct you by saying, "more likely to be arrested and convicted of a crime."

Good Liberal. You get a cookie! [Pats head]

Black people are more likely to commit violent crime than whites, and not even by a small margin ... the difference is massive that it must take some serious cognitive dissonance to maintain views like yours.

Re:Profiling? (0)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about 2 years ago | (#41798585)

Hey you patronizing cookie-serving idiot:

learn about the difference between sample means and population means. And it's even worse than that: just like in fubared research papers, it's possible to generate the sample mean which you would like by choosing the right sample.

Example: if you could really do a study of all of the arrests that happened and could have (not should have) happened, you would most certainly find that children of policemen/policewomen and the children of mayors/governors/congressman/senators/district-attorney/and-any-other-corruptibles-in-the-chain are so amazingly incapable of doing any wrong whatsover, even when :

-- they drunk-drive into a person's house (Orlando)

-- they rape one or more underage girls at a house party (Orange County, California) [or in that case, the other boys get busted and the DA's kid somehow did nothing wrong]

-- rape women frequently (pick a Kennedy, not any Kennedy, just the one(s) that do that sort of thing)

-- kill (pick a Kenned... Chappa-what-a-dick)

-- find any two examples from any county in any state in any year just by looking at the papers.

When certain populations are arrested more frequently than others, you get the self-serving statistics that you need: look at how many arrests there are for this violent behaviour, or for robbery, or for loitering, or for associating with known gang-members. It just turns out that for the "right people" (on the "right side of the tracks"), madame-Justice uses her blind-eye to really turn a blind eye and ignore those wrong doings.

downvoted for disagreeing (1)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about 2 years ago | (#41800173)

Calling out the grand-parents' patronizing tone and commentary and replying with factual disagreement is not trolling and is not worthy of being down-voted as trolling. Why don't you come out of the anonymous shadows and actually respond and disagree? I may be up a notch calling an Anonymous Coward an "idiot", but haven't they already called themselves Cowardly by definition? And being patronizing and idiotic to boot gets them my reply, which I put in under my own name-nick. That's a little more effort and responsibility than you were willing to take on, eh?

downvoted my reply below for disagreeing? (1)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about 2 years ago | (#41800187)

Calling out the parents' patronizing tone and commentary and replying with factual disagreement is not trolling and is not worthy of being down-voted as trolling. Why don't you come out of the anonymous shadows and actually respond and disagree? I may be up a notch calling an Anonymous Coward an "idiot", but haven't they already called themselves Cowardly by definition? And being patronizing and idiotic to boot gets them my reply, which I put in under my own name-nick. That's a little more effort and responsibility than you were willing to take on, eh? Please re-read my response about sample means and population means and reply on the content of my comment, not just the tone. I may have used a harsh word. but I won't take back my opinion.

Re:Profiling? (3, Interesting)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 2 years ago | (#41798417)

poverty is obviously associated with higher crime rates.

The world has some very poor societies that are relatively crime free. The correlation between crime and poverty is complicated, and is certainly not "obvious".

If white people were the "subdominant race" in America, we would see the same trends in reverse.

You mean like in Haiti? Or Nigeria?

If your assertion that white dominance causes black crime was really true, then black crime would be higher in areas where they are a smaller minority, and diminish as they became more dominant. That is the exact opposite of what actually happens. I live in San Jose, California, and our black population is about 3%. We have one of the lowest crime rates of any big city in America, and blacks in particular are less likely to commit crimes. If you look at black majority cities, like East St Louis [wikipedia.org] , Illinois (95% black) it has one of the highest rates of crime (nearly all black-on-black). I don't see how you can blame that on "white dominance".

Re:Profiling? (1, Insightful)

Jessified (1150003) | about 2 years ago | (#41798783)

Oh I see. Racism is over, doesn't exist anymore now that Obama was elected, right? Or you don't see racism yourself, whatever colour you are, so it must not exist. I misjudged you when you took a position against racial profiling, so I'm sorry.

So then your theory is that black people are genetically predisposed to crime? Or what? Perhaps you can explain why black people make up a majority of the prison population in the US? Enlighten us.

The world has some very poor societies that are relatively crime free. The correlation between crime and poverty is complicated, and is certainly not "obvious".

Fine. It's not obvious to you. But counter-examples of a trend do not negate a trend. That's why it's called a trend. If you don't accept that poverty and crime tend to correlate, then say so. We can put it on the shelf with other myths, like global warming, evolution and heliocentrism.

If your assertion that white dominance causes black crime was really true, then black crime would be higher in areas where they are a smaller minority, and diminish as they became more dominant.

If I meant majority I would have said majority. Do not conflate the two concepts. Dominance has to do with power, not straight numbers. If dominance in South Africa was determined by pure numbers, then we never would have seen apartheid.

I don't see how you can blame that on "white dominance".

I'm not saying white dominance causes crime. I'm saying the colour of who is dominant and who is subdominant is irrelevant; colour doesn't matter. Social injustice and inequality contributes to racial disparities in crime rates.

You dance around it and mince your words, but why don't you come out and say that blackness itself is a cause of crime. If you don't think that, then offer up a reasonable counter-explanation to explain the disparity in crime rates that you yourself have highlighted. The problem is, if you are a person who realizes that all people, regardless of skin colour, inherently have the same potential for good and evil, then the only way that prisons can be over represented by black people is because of institutionalized discrimination somewhere in society. Either it's the people or it's society: so which is it, according to you?

Ugh I need to have a shower to get all this racism off of me. You know what don't respond, or if you do I'm not going to read it. I've had enough troll for one day.

Will it be as intelligent as Siri? (4, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | about 2 years ago | (#41797177)

I said "The corner of VINE" not "PINE," you dumb bitch!

"Hey, would you like a free iPhone?" (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about 2 years ago | (#41797185)

Reverse the polarity, and crime turns into good deeds.

Re:"Hey, would you like a free iPhone?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41797689)

A criminal is somebody who didn't manage to make his harmful behavior the law.

Person of Interest (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41797191)

this is the focus of Person of Interest

Minority Report (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41797211)

It's here!

Anomalous Behavior (3, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 2 years ago | (#41797223)

IOW this system will fight social change. If you belong to a group that has the short end of the stick when this system is deployed, you will be flagged for not accepting that treatment like everyone else.

This is for the drones, right? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41797231)

Better watch out [f-secure.com]

SECOND POST! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41797233)

BTW what's up with digg [digg.com] ?

Sorry, we're working on that!
Please try again in a few minutes.

We apologize for the inconvenience.

Minority Report (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41797245)

So no they're going to start arresting people who look like they might shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre?

Also: "That guy put his hand down the back of his pants to scratch his arse, he's got a gun!"

Pure BS! (3, Informative)

bogaboga (793279) | about 2 years ago | (#41797261)

Scientists, through the Army-funded research dubbed Mind's Eye, have created intelligent software that recognizes human activities in video and can predict what might just happen next; sounding an alarm if it detects anomalous behavior.

To use the words, "might just happen next", is just code for "might not happen next".

In short, it's just a loophole for scientists to get more funding, while emphasizing that their software does exactly what they said it would do.

We have better thing to do or worry about, right?

Here we go. (4, Insightful)

vikingpower (768921) | about 2 years ago | (#41797267)

In my native Europe as much as in your great & free US: More surveillance state. More police state. More security craze. Where is this going to stop ? When are ordinary, yet intelligent people going to refuse to live in and contribute to such a state ?

Re:Here we go. (1)

Shaman (1148) | about 2 years ago | (#41797327)

Precisely. Why are they creating a societal cage?

Re:Here we go. (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 2 years ago | (#41797339)

When are ordinary, yet intelligent people going to refuse to live in and contribute to such a state ?

Never, because:

  1. Most people are busy drinking and watching sports, or gossiping on Facebook
  2. Surveillance systems will be used to find those who are not, and that information will be used to prevent them from achieving any real change.

Re:Here we go. (1)

Ardyvee (2447206) | about 2 years ago | (#41798279)

Those would be: a) the not intelligent people, or b) those that decided to NOT give a fuck and just enjoy it while they can. Either way you're right. Sadly. Anybody up for some half-life 2 style action? We just need to convince the government of naming the police "combine" and then get a Gordon Freeman.

Re:Here we go. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41797349)

Never call the UK "Europe" again. They are *crazy* over there.

Re:Here we go. (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#41797423)

In my native Europe as much as in your great & free US: More surveillance state. More police state. More security craze. Where is this going to stop ? When are ordinary, yet intelligent people going to refuse to live in and contribute to such a state ?

When an outside force interrupts the process. Every police state fell not because of internal pressures, but because something external to it caused a slight shift which then energized the population into revolt.

Re:Here we go. (2)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | about 2 years ago | (#41798551)

That's a rather bold statement. Throughout history revolutions were triggered both from the outside and inside, often a combination of both, sometimes just one of them. Often they dissolve when the dictator dies. The Franco and Salazar regimes in Europe are perfect examples. Luckily it seems that extremely despotic systems based on terror don't last long, see e.g. Cambodia during the Khmer regime or the 3rd Reich. Less oppressive regimes seem to take longer, about 2-3 generations, until they disintegrate. I'm not saying that events from the outside play no role, but they are often overrated, e.g. the Soviet Union did not collapse just because of a economic problems or pressure from the outside, a huge factor in its collapse were Gorbatchev's voluntary reforms und a certain amount of support for them in the progressive wing of the communist party.

Re:Here we go. (1)

MrLizard (95131) | about 2 years ago | (#41799335)

"When are ordinary, yet intelligent people going to refuse to live in and contribute to such a state ?"

When the leading food-related health problem becomes starvation, not obesity. Fat, warm (cool in summer), entertained, people do not rebel.

If the British had Big Macs and X-Boxes back in 1776, we'd still be talking English now.

PS: For those who are going to think you're oh-so-very-clever and point out "Duh, we are talking English now, dummy!", the sentence above was an attempt at "humor". A common form of humor is making self-evidently incorrect comments. This is "funny" because most humor derives from some form of contradiction between the expected and the actual, especially if it involves weasels. A common indication of low intelligence is being unable to identify that an incorrect statement is being made deliberately, and attempting to appear smart by correcting it, thus indicating extremely poor understanding of basic human communication tactics, such as irony and sarcasm.

Helpful to consider your view of government ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41797295)

"Left wing" and "right wing" have their differences, but often both of "those guys" would like society to operate (for the best and most noble purposes!" like the Panopticon [wikipedia.org] .
 

It's vaporware (5, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | about 2 years ago | (#41797299)

No, they haven't "developed a surveillance system". The paper is two psychologists blithering about the potential architecture of one. It reminds me of the awful papers that came from the "expert systems" community in the 1980s. There's been some progress; it mentions Bayesian statistics. But it's fundamentally an approach based on parsing visual data into something that looks like predicate calculus and grinding on that. There's a long history of that not working.

It's an idea in the right direction, though. A key component of intelligence is prediction. Knowing what is likely to happen is a basic component of common sense, an area in which AI systems have historically been weak. With prediction comes the ability to ask "what if" questions, essential to deciding what to do next without doing something stupid.

There's been real progress in that area, but not from the expert systems people. Adobe Photoshop's content-aware fill [photoshopessentials.com] is an example of a successful system which has a form of "common sense" - it fills in plausible-looking areas to replace sections deleted from photos. Related technologies exist for videos, and are used for motion compression and 2D to fake 3D conversion. Systems which look at video and guess "what happens next" may be the next step.

Re:It's vaporware (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41797709)

True in a sense. Machine prediction and precognition is long way away, as it depends on more inputs and sensors than just camera lens.
It all just seems as one of those "throw the cammo over it - DARPA ppl. are coming to visit and we do need some healthy cash" projects.
More interesting was some recent science program that is focused on the thought creation and generation that had one confirmed result - we form our strings of thoughts in certain regions of our brains and make decisions - 6 seconds before we become aware of them - now to have a such system that can detect, analyse and crunch on generated data - that would be something. Like this, CV AI and its derivatives are just chasing the tail of some past times...

Re:It's vaporware (2)

MangoCats (2757129) | about 2 years ago | (#41797905)

Hello, this it Target calling, did you know your teenage daughter is pregnant?

Re:It's vaporware (1)

BeanThere (28381) | about 2 years ago | (#41798059)

I've read the article and the paper and I can't see anything to indicate it's vaporware ... by all accounts there appears to be a working basic system.

*gasps* Re:It's vaporware (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41798433)

Does this mean it would be possible for someone to delete the corprat shit from a SyFyLus channel recording and have Photoshop fill something passable back in?!?!

HALLELUJAH I shall pass that on to the pirate service I subscribe to that can't seem to fumble up a cable encryption cracker.

fairly predicatable (5, Insightful)

andrew_d_allen (971588) | about 2 years ago | (#41797309)

With most surveillance footage it's pretty easy to spot what's going to happen next: the customer will pay for their items, receive change, and walk out of the store. Unless you're watching it on the internet. Then, a car will drive into the storefront or a botched hold-up will occur.

Reduce shoplifting and car theft? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41797319)

If thieves display subtle signs that can be detected why not.

Are there any reasons to wait for the crime? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41797323)

If the system has a high confidence in suspicious behavior, what reasons would be there to wait for the crime to happen? Italy just arrested scientists for failing to predict an Earthquake. How can anyone justify not intervening when an about-to-happen crime is detected? They would not only lose their jobs and reputations, but also might just thrown in jail along with the Italian scientists. On the other hand, stopping a crime that wouldn't have happened anyway has no negative repercussions for this person.

Re:Are there any reasons to wait for the crime? (2)

Let's All Be Chinese (2654985) | about 2 years ago | (#41797863)

what reasons would be there to wait for the crime to happen?

The freedom to act must include the freedom to fuck up. (Though it does not imply immunity from consequences.)

So it depends highly on just what consequences you're proposing to attach to "detected pre-crime". If all you do is to "just happen" to appear on the scene, and in case of private property ask people to leave, then you can.

If you are proposing to impose sanctions on not-yet-commited "crimes", or even "merely" build tracking databases, then that means you've reduced freedom some more, in fact you've stooped to thought police. It means that the country in which this is deployed is no longer free.

On the other hand, stopping a crime that wouldn't have happened anyway has no negative repercussions for this person.

Does it not? I think that's terribly naïve for a regular reader here, in fact for anyone with an internet connection.

Plus, there is the issue that such systems do effect changes in behaviour; you're effectively making people the string puppets of the technology. I think that's putting the cart before the horse, so this is a class of things we simply really ought not want. In fact, we ought to not want these things.

I know about that.. (1)

kakaburra (2508064) | about 2 years ago | (#41797351)

It involves precogs right?

Hah! Finally! (3, Funny)

ibsteve2u (1184603) | about 2 years ago | (#41797385)

A camera that can tell me if I'm about to be asked "Do I look fat in this dress?"

Re:Hah! Finally! (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#41797443)

A camera that can tell me if I'm about to be asked "Do I look fat in this dress?"

Not really an innovation; It doesn't take an intelligent camera to know what comes next. Specifically, it doesn't matter which way you answer, you're still not getting laid tonight. Now, a camera that can text you before your significant other even asks if you want to go shopping with her and provide a list of socially-acceptable excuses would be an innovation. It would also break several laws of physics, notably that timey whimey wibbly wobbley...

Re:Hah! Finally! (2)

ibsteve2u (1184603) | about 2 years ago | (#41798221)

Not really an innovation; It doesn't take an intelligent camera to know what comes next.

Oh, I know that there is no safe way to answer it. But if said camera can warn me that the question is about to be asked, I can evade the situation entirely. That might offer me the opportunity to again develop/cultivate a worthwhile "significant other".

As it stands, I've found that my penchant for honesty is entirely too intrusive.

Re:Hah! Finally! (1)

loustic (1577303) | about 2 years ago | (#41798521)

Everybody knows what will happen next to the camera ...

Detects anomalous behavior? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41797391)

Carnegie Mellon university researchers have developed a surveillance system that can .. predict what might just happen next; sounding an alarm if it detects anomalous behavior".

Except in people who don't want to be noticed, like crooks and spooks ...

--

link [speedyshare.com]

See what the worlds most innovative consultancy uses for IT

Can't wait for the consumer version. (1)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | about 2 years ago | (#41797399)

I'll wear out that fast-forward button getting to the shower scene.

By mandate of state of Pennsylvania (1)

kakaburra (2508064) | about 2 years ago | (#41797427)

Precrime division, you are being given this speeding ticket for Rash driving that was to take place at 09:16:23 this morning.

Re:By mandate of state of Pennsylvania (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41802261)

So, if you were already fined, does that mean that you can then go out and do the crime?

Neither Effective Nor Desirable (1)

guttentag (313541) | about 2 years ago | (#41797533)

I see two ways this could be implemented (neither one is truly effective or desirable, but that won't stop people from building it or buying it if it makes them feel safer).
  1. The system observes everyone, notices patterns in behavior and flags deviation. This is bad because it would ultimately force people to "perform" in uniform ways in public places. And if everyone is doing that, no one stands out because they ALL lookmlike they're hiding something... Because they are. Maybe the way you walk is different, or you take your time as opposed to marching toward your goal with determination. What about the person with a health problem that walks funny? We now have a computer flagging that person as deviant or defective whenever they're out in public.
  2. The system is trained to watch for certain patterns and alert humans that the next logical act will be X. This is bad because now you have a person acting in an enforcement capability on circumstantial evidence and behavior predictions of a machine. Imagine you're in a store, holding a package of Claritin in your hand and reading the label. You reach into your inside jacket pocket with your free hand. The machine assumes you're going to pocket this $30 little box and leave. You hear, "attention Target team members. Assistance is needed in aisle 3... For... Claritin." You pull out your phone to look up the active ingredient and see if there's a cheaper generic available. By the time an employee arrives seconds later, you've put the box back on the shelf and he figures it's in your pocket. He's not going to accuse you outright, but he's going to stand there and talk to you about Claritin in the hopes that you will realize they know what you've got and put it back. But you don't, so he follows you around the store. Disturbed by this behavior, you leave without buying anything. They lose and you lose.

Predicting human behavior is a messy business. Sometimes you can do it amazingly well ("look at this guy behind me in the next lane... He's speeding up to try and squeeze in front of me before I pass the guy in front of him"), but there are so many different personal, cultural and environmental factors that drive a person's behavior you can't rely on it. The only rule is, "there is no such thing as common sense."

Needs mass spook-spamming (4, Insightful)

heretic108 (454817) | about 2 years ago | (#41797537)

I'm thinking along the lines of the emacs "spook" function, amongst other things. You just need enough a large enough group of participants working together.

The system can be trained in weird ways. For instance, if enough people in enough places scratch their noses with their left hands, then break out in a mock fight, the system will learn to sound the alarm every time someone scratches their nose with their left hand.

Or, for something more socially useful - have people pull out a cellphone, talk for a few seconds, then pull out a mock gun and pretend to mug others. Then, the system will freak out every time some annoying jerk pulls out a cellphone in public. Along that same theme, train the system to send in the troops whenever someone adjusts their underwear in public, or picks their nose, or farts loudly...

Re:Needs mass spook-spamming (1)

Holistic Missile (976980) | about 2 years ago | (#41797687)

... or farts loudly...

If the camera can *see* a fart, maybe it should call in the troops - for a rescue mission!

Future Crime (1)

hhawk (26580) | about 2 years ago | (#41797815)

Future crime and skynet merge...

so easy to fool... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41798001)

hax

Walk in line, citizen. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41798003)

Walk in line. Do only wear grey. Walk in line. Do not look left or right. Are you happy, citizen?

Let's play Global Thermonuclear War. (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 2 years ago | (#41798029)

Just don't hook it to the launch system.

Re:Let's play Global Thermonuclear War. (1)

chromas (1085949) | about 2 years ago | (#41799983)

Or press Lockout Changes.

Subversion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41798329)

Now the would be's know the system is there, how much subversion will occur with planned false behavior? Ooops, system fails now due to cost of subversive activities. OMG, I'm the bad guy now for pointing out the obvious. Gamers do it all the time, so stop with your BS already.

I'd like to see it predict ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41798375)

Me:
1. Dance the robot.
2. Sit down on toilet.
Your move Mr. Computer ...

Bogus Research...FTA (4, Informative)

globaljustin (574257) | about 2 years ago | (#41798479)

I looked through the full text of the research (http://stids.c4i.gmu.edu/papers/STIDSPapers/STIDS2012_T02_OltramariLebiere_CognitiveGroundedSystem.pdf)

It is bogus. Wouldn't get published. They say the system *predicts behavior* using a systematic behavior ontology. When it describes their theory of the ontology it lists three factors in the system.

"Causal Selectivity" #3 is the one that links **cause and effect** its the part of the equation where your action (reaching in pocket) is either interpreted as something threatening (trigger bomb) or non-threatening (scratch balls discretely in public).

Guess what...all they do is say "Will be addressed in further research"...!!!

The whole basis for their claim...'prediction' is explicitly not part of this research. They do not even address the link of one behavior to another, yet it is the whole premise of their claim!

From page two (emphasis added)

Ontology pattern matching - comparing events on the basis of the similarity between their respective pattern components: e.g., a person’s burying an object and a person’s digging a hole are similar because they both include some basic body movements as well as the act of removing the soil;

Conceptual packaging - eliciting the conceptual structure of actions in a scene through the identication of the roles played by the detected objects and trajectories: e.g. if you watch McCutchen hitting an homerun, the Pittsburgh Pirates’ player number 22 is the ‘agent’, the ball is the patient, the baseball bat is the ‘instrument’, toward the tribune is the ‘direction’, etc.).

Causal selectivity: attentional mechanisms drive the visual system in picking the causal aspects of a scene, i.e. selecting the most distinctive actions and discarding collateral or accidental events (e.g., in the above mentioned homerun scenario, focusing on the movements of the rst baseman is likely to be superuous). In the next section we describe how the Cognitive Engine realizes the rst two functionalites by means of combining the architectural features of ACT-R with ontological knowledge, while **Causal selectivity will be addressed in future work.**

Re:Bogus Research...FTA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41799671)

Don't worry, they'll be able to tell if you're scratching you're balls, or reaching for a remote control switch, because they'll be simultaneously bathing subjects in backscatter x-rays, to see through their clothes and vehicles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray [wikipedia.org]
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0929/Feds-radiating-Americans-Mobile-X-ray-vans-hit-US-streets [csmonitor.com]

That, and they'll also have a personality profile and social index built off of your online activity, since they surreptitiously identified you with facial recognition technology.

it's your tone (1)

globaljustin (574257) | about 2 years ago | (#41801783)

I will add the following:

While their backscattering my social network facial recognition identity index in 'real time' they might as well just scan my brain waves [wikipedia.org] with real time fMRI [wikipedia.org] and hell maybe throw in a kindly microwave auditory effect reminder [wikipedia.org] if'n it looks like i'm going to get ornery ;)

Seriously? (1)

Cute and Cuddly (2646619) | about 2 years ago | (#41798583)

"Scientists, through the Army-funded research". Is it there a better example of an oxymoron?

Trouble in River City (1)

carrier lost (222597) | about 2 years ago | (#41798595)

I wonder how long it will take the system to stop flagging dancing as suspicious behavior?

Re:Trouble in River City (1)

detritus. (46421) | about 2 years ago | (#41799091)

Or jumping jacks. That's been used as justification to bomb suspected terrorists.

anyone can predict... (2)

mschaffer (97223) | about 2 years ago | (#41798911)

Anyone can predict. Let me know when it can see the future.

Re:anyone can predict... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41799459)

Sure, anyone can predict, but a computer can do it 24/7 without pay or benefits. What's more a person staring at a monitor is only good for what 4 hours or something right?

Imagine if it was actually accurate sometimes (1)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | about 2 years ago | (#41799433)

Robot: I predict that I will be used for probably cause, warantless searches and seizures. I predict that I myself will be part of the problem in the future, terminate me now.

Scary ass article until,,. (2)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about 2 years ago | (#41800365)

You scan the PDF's and find it's for what path (walking) a person would take.

Eagle Eye (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41801151)

Eagle Eye hasn't been mentioned yet? Or just people hate Shia LeBeouf that much?

Big green-grin.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41801377)

How could that system possibly guess.. am just scratching my thighs underneath the bed sheet..! :/

Hopping a fence... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41802131)

Come on guys. You could be detecting whether a person is about to hop a fence after stopping to check it out.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?